[MUD-Dev] The reality of constant combat??

[Adam Wiggins]

[JK:]
> >>sort of a moral judgement on what they are doing, or their right to live
> >>as they choose, but because it's bad for the 'common good' for them
> >>to be running around doing what they do.
> 
> This is a different issue anmd if I misunderstood you, Im sorry.  Youa re
> correct that the law does not care abotu morality. It cannot afford to as
> morality is too subjective. The law cares abotu adherance to its code and
> its code arises otu of a VERY complex political mish-mash of reasons and
> motivations.  Morailty IS one of them-- if you want an example of morality
> driving legislation I suggest you look at both sides of the abortion
> issue-- but its NOT the ONLY consideration, certainly.

Well, I don't desire to delve into philosophy here, but suffice it to
say that the brain is a neural net which is trained from a very early
age (whether in a fully functioning society or not) to weight certain
things as very strongly negative, for the reason that these acts are
very negative in terms of survival of the race (and therefore, the
owner of the brain).  In modern day we call these weights 'morals', so
in effect they come from the same place that the laws do.
This is a seperate point from the one I was making above, but as I said,
I don't want to go into philosophy and worldview.  My primary goal
was to try to divide some of the concepts we have laid out here into
smaller pieces which become much clearer once seperated from the whole.

> >>If someone comes at you with an axe, you don't just think "No problem -
> >>I've got 100 hitpoints and that axe only does 2d8.  I can take a few hits,
> >>at least, before deciding to flee."  You know full well that, even if
> >>you are a better fighter than the person you face, there's a pretty could
> >>chance that you could slip up somehow - and a single good blow with that
> >>thing is going to put you in rough shape, no matter how tough you are.
> >
> >This isn't very well reflected in most MUDs, but I agree entirely.
> 
> I think this goes further. In the real world you only get 1 life. Ever.
> This tends to make it alot more precious.  

Absolutely.

> In addition, in the real world there are complex systems basicly designed
> to insure that there is ALWAYS someoen more pwoerful then you.  If you

Yes.  Even if there's nothing 'designed' that way (ie, law enforcement),
law of probablity says that there is someone more powerful than you,
regardless.

Brings to mind...

Bart: "But Dad, you always told me that I could do whatever I wanted
if I just put my mind to it!"
Homer: "Well son, I did tell you that.  But now that you're old enough I
can tell you the truth.  That's a crock.  No matter how good you are, there's
always someone better than you."
Bart: "Gotcha.  No point; don't try."

:)

> break the laws.. or even if you just significantly upset these people...
> you will be in big trouble.  The same is true generally in any well
> balanced campaign pen and paper game.  The city of Waterdeep, one of TSR's
> most popular settings, has increasingly tough city gaurds that go all the
> way up, if necessary, to legendary characters who have been around for
> thousands of years.  NO player will EVER be more pwoerful then these NPCs.
> That is their intent and the reason for their being.

Well, in RL we like to use numbers and technology, but the idea is the
same.

> Withotu someone to be afraid of an awful lot of people don't knwo how to
> behave.  To me THIS is a primary factor missing in most on line RPGs.
> There is a "max power level" in game that ANY player can reach with some
> dedication. This is a bad situation IMO, at elast for maintaining a society.

I agree with this also, although I have an ulterior motive.
For a powerplayer, being #1 is the worst.  It means that you have nothing else
to do, and nowhere else to go but down.  Usually it results in boredom and
the player only logging on to chat with their friends.
Also, as I've said, my favorite experiences on diku involve the times
that thirty or more of us would get together to go kill some buff dragon,
and fail misserably.  This certainly makes one feel like one is part of a
larger world, instead of the world-is-your-oyster effect.

Lastly, yes.  Players should never reach a point where they are no longer
afraid of anything.  The easiest way to achieve this is to just make
the world realistic.  Even the best swordsman can't hold off half a dozen
semi-competant players armed with bows and swords, tired of taking shit.
As I said, I continue to hold firm to my belief that at least 50% of the
people in the online world fall into the "non-asshole" category.  If
that ever becomes untrue, then I doubt my game will work too well
without intervention from the admin (bleh), and at any how I will probably
loose all faith in humanity at that point and become a hermit somewhere.

> Its worth noting that DSO didn't give experience for PvP.  It didn't stop
> it from happening. All that happened was that our SDKs ran around killing
> monsters in tghe most efficeint manenr to max, and then went after players.
>  Eventually they even tired of doing it thast way and just strated hacking
> their way to max power.  For them, the game was about killign out other
> players and proving the size of their shlong ('course to me this proves the
> size, and its not very big...).  They didn't need an in game reward, their
> reward was the anguish caused to other players and the corrosponding
> feeling of pwoer they derived from it.

Hard for me to comment on this without knowing the game.  I'm guessing
that you were using the standard Dark Sun rules, which are of course AD&D.
As has been proved over and over again, AD&D translates rather poorly to
the computer, and so I can't really speak for any mud-like game that
would attempt to use it.  (On the other hand, Dark Sun is by far
my favorite TSR-fashioned world, both in look and in actual mechanics.
Largely due to Jerry Brom's awesome concept art.)

> A note by the way... and Im sorry to bury it here but its relevent now.
> I've been thinkign about who goes where.  Since DSo IS very much an RP
> game, chances are we didn't ATTRACT the mature PvPers.  They went to games
> that were designed for such. What we got was all the IMMATURE ones to whom
> a world full of victims was the perfect environment.  As such Im sure my
> view of PvPers is slanmted and I will apologize for that.

*shrug* - I don't classify myself as PvPer, as you've defined it, even
though I enjoy PvP conflicts from time to time, so I'm not offended.
Aside form this, however, my guess it that ANY game which is designed
for public consumption is going to attract the lowest common denominator,
and I don't envy you for having to deal with that.  I'm content to stick
to my nice, sheltered mud world :)

> >>Now, this is certainly not the only way to implement a world like this,
> >>but the point is that you don't just hardcode certain things that people
> >>can and cannot do to each other.  This has the result of making the world
> >>both restrictive and not very believable.  What you should do, however, is
> >>create a world the way it would actually evolve.  
> 
> Given the aforementioend issues... that death is not what it is in the real
> world and that accountability is so much harder to create, Ild argue that
> this wont happen.  Ild love to see it happen, I just dont think it will.

Hum, play more muds?  They are crude, granted, but the basis for what
I'm talking about IS there.  I'd say fewer than half of all muds have
set (as in, hardcoded) societies or moral guidlines beyond 'Try not
to be an asshole too much.'

> >Given a large enough player base (which most MUDs have) you can have
> >actual player characters holding positions like town healers, town
> >guards, etc. in your main city. 
> 
> This requires either a HUGE player base of players intrested in such "civil
> servent" positions or crazy players who are willing to devote their lives
> to it.

There's a difference between doing something interesting that is
non-combat related and productive for the given society, and being a
civil servant.  How about if players owned local shops, employed NPCs
to actually run the things, and came back to collect the money?  They'd
worry about schemes to attract new customers, how to keep thieves away,
and whether they can afford to buy that ritzy space on main street in hopes
that the better traffic would pay itself off in a few weeks.